ECP PCN - 'disabled bay' sans blue badge Morrisons car park sidcup - ** WON AT POPLA **

[silverfox1961]

Ah, no, all you do is state 'the driver' never name them. It is standard practice to do so.

 

You are not liable for many reasons, including not being the driver

[Beesnees]

Well, thx for trying anyway. Obtuse it is then.

I'll use armadillo's draft as the basis of my appeal, & since it's an auto rejection anyway, whether or not I get the logic behind it is of little consequence.

 

Appeal submitted on-line with a day to spare by my calculations.

I like to live dangerously.

 

They send an auto acknowledgment which is quite handy.

 

It obviates the need for screen grabs, etc.

 

As it's substantially the same as the draft above, I assume there's no need to post it up.

 

Wouldn't wanna get too much of a reputation for my endless re-writes.

 

Seems I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.

 

I'm surprised they've voluntarily incurred the cost of issuing me with a POPLA appeal code.

 

They obviously fancy their chances.

 

Maybe the Beavis case gave them some much needed encouragement to pursue to the bitter end.

 

Hopefully these will be easier to read. I forgot to do the conversion to PDF format.

ECP_p1_Apr16_PDF.pdf

ECP_p2_Apr16_PDF.pdf

 

That's the one.

 

Coz if they see from the off that I'm up for a fight, I may not hear from them again. Just like last time when the missus was alleged to have parked outside a bay. But ok, if you think that would be a waste of time, I'll do it your way. At least it's simpler & less time-consuming.

 

Oh yeah, I'm still not clear if the period of parking point made earlier is valid. Should it form part of my POPLA appeal if it goes that far?

 

How about this?

 

Sirs,

 

With ref. to the above NTK, keeper liability is denied. The grounds include, but are not limited to:

1. Non-compliance with the requirements of schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, and

2. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged infraction.

 

Under the circumstances, I must ask you for a valid POPLA appeal code so that further representations can be made to the competent authority.

 

Yours, etc.

 

BTW, just to endorse something I read on this forum, a little anecdote for all visitors to this thread by way of warning.

 

In my early days of posting here, I was PM'd by someone asking for help to upload images.

 

I thought it a bit strange at the time, but agreed to offer help via e-mail. Doh.

 

Heard nothing from this person after I responded to the request.

 

Now there's a surprise.

 

I'm flattered that they considered me a sufficient threat that they wanted to ID me.

 

Even so, let that be a warning to everybody else here.

 

DON'T respond to PM's, especially if they ask you to continue via e-mail.

[dx100uk]

wont get anywhere if they keep using the disabled badge reason either...

means nowt on private land

[Beesnees]

That being the case, the grounds of my appeal to POPLA is just locus standi then? That's it?

[ericsbrother]

from waht I have seen so far,

ombudsman services ltd doesnt pass on the evidence the parking co has provided

nor does it make clear whether the parking co has the opportunity to see what you have said.

 

 

Demand proof of locus standi rather than accepting the word of the adjudicator

on the grounds that you would consider paying if they were to show strict proof

but will otherwise dispute the matter in another place

 

whilst you are about it, did the disabled spaces have a blue badge holders only sign next to every space or did they rely on the paint job on the tarmac to determine. If the latter then they really have overstated their case as there is precedent on this.

[Beesnees]

If memory serves, each space had the yellow painted wheelchair logo on the ground. I thought I posted a piccie, but maybe not.

I'll check my foto records to see if I have one, and if not, check the site next time we're there.

 

Hmm........that's odd. I could swear I posted pics of the signage, & even had expert comment on it, but unable to find 'em now. I'll check my archives & re-post.

[dx100uk]

prob the crash we had

don't forget to post as PDF

[ericsbrother]

if that is the limit then they dont really have a claim as the paint job doesnt fulfil the requirements as decised in a previous claim. A Sign next to each area saying blue badge holders only otherwise.... is needed.

[Beesnees]

I've left it a bit late.

 

I think today might be my last day for my appeal to POPLA,

 

so would appreciate some help with the grounds please.

 

Here are the requested pics.

 

pix.pdf

 

In the absence of a response so far, I've drafted the following defence:

 

The imposition of the charge is rejected on the grounds of locus standi. Markings on private ground have no standing in law, and are therefore not enforceable. If I am wrong, please cite the relevant legislation, failing which I shall assume your consent.

 

Alternatively, in the event of a groundless ruling against me, I am prepared to have the matter formally adjudicated by the competent authorities in a properly constituted court.

[armadillo71]

 

Your last sentence seems to suggest you think that you could deliver a properly constructed defence, in the necessary timeframe, to the CC and then in front of a judge...

Your posting history suggests otherwise.

 

The POPLA code will last the weekend if the 28 days is up today.

 

The signage states ' customers only ' and the driver was not a customer . Therefore the terms and conditions do not apply.

 

That would be my POPLA appeal with the opening line , ' As registered keeper I am not liable for the charge. '

 

You can and will of course rewrite those two lines, but I'd like to see the adjudication on it...

[Beesnees]

Just tried to post my appeal with a little over an hr to spare before the deadline, only to find that the POPLA site is down for maintenance until 8.00 am Mon 16th May. Oops.

 

I assume the deadline for my appeal is extended accordingly?

 

Not sure what you mean by

Quote

'the driver was not a customer'.

She did some in-store shopping on the day, so that makes her a customer, dunnit?

 

So you're saying drop the last 2 lines? Redundant?

 

My reading of POFA 2012 makes me liable if I fail to disclose driver details, and ecp make exactly the same point in their rejection letter. I still don't get why that ain't necessarily so, but I don't wanna provoke another round of incomprehensible exchanges. I'll just take it on trust that you guys are correct in your mystical interpretation of the law.

 

Oh, and thx for your vote of confidence in my ability to mount a legal defence. You could well be right Armadillo, but that's why we have you to help us lesser mortals out, innit?

[armadillo71]

'Oops' .... ? well that says quite a lot doesn't it.

 

Assume away. We all know how the saying goes...

 

Can you clarify please-

 

You think that the keeper is liable for a ' parking charge ' under schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 JUST because the RK does not identify the driver to the PPC?

[Beesnees]

Makes an ass of u & me?

 

Yes, that's how I read it. I know you guys say otherwise, but never understood why, & never received an explanation why that isn't so in terms that I can understand.

[armadillo71]

Yes, that's how I read it. I know you guys say otherwise, but never understood why, & never received an explanation why that isn't so in terms that I can understand.

 

From page 2 of this thread;

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458451-euro-car-parks-pcn-disabled-bay-sans-blue-badge&p=4864949&viewfull=1#post4864949

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458451-euro-car-parks-pcn-disabled-bay-sans-blue-badge&p=4864875&viewfull=1#post4864875

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458451-euro-car-parks-pcn-disabled-bay-sans-blue-badge&p=4864829&viewfull=1#post4864829

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458451-euro-car-parks-pcn-disabled-bay-sans-blue-badge&p=4864666&viewfull=1#post4864666

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458451-euro-car-parks-pcn-disabled-bay-sans-blue-badge&p=4864267&viewfull=1#post4864267

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458451-euro-car-parks-pcn-disabled-bay-sans-blue-badge&p=4847060&viewfull=1#post4847060

 

And for good measure, here is the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (schedule 4 );

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

[Beesnees]

I know this must be infuriating to you, and I musta understood at one point, coz I said I think I got it. by jove. Must be a case of anno domini catching up with me - not sure what it is I got exactly, so will hafta review the entire thread to get back in the swing of things.

 

A straight reading still tells me that if I refuse to disclose driver details, they can come after me as the RK. You say not so, coz there's no keeper liability. So yeah, still a bit conscussed. But thx for trying anyway. Just as well I didn't major in law.

[ericsbrother]

You have been given the necessary advice yet you would rather argue over how long is a piece of string than actually use that advice.

 

In any civil claim it is for the plaintiff to make their case

so they have to show that where certain protocols apply that they can show liability.

 

 

To create a keeper liability they have to take certain actions

and use the necessary wording in any sigange or correspondence.

SO, if they dont do this there is NO keeper liability.

 

 

In this case the onus is on them to prove that the driver was a shopper

otherwise the signage doesnt apply as the person would be a trespasser.

The PoFA doesnt apply to trespass, just contractual matters.

 

 

They have to prove that you, the keeper, or the driver if known was actually shopping otherwise in the absence of any legal obligation to obey disabled parking signs on private land in England (different in Scotland).

 

 

So you dont say who was driving, nor that they were shopping there

but just invite them to prove that the driver at the time was a shopper at Morrisons

because the signage is only applicable to shoppers not others (trespassers).

 

I hope that you now understand what to say and why-trespass is nothing to to with PoFa and so no keeper liability for trespass.

 

Start your appeal off with

"the appellant does not believe that the parking co has the authority assigned by the landowner to create contracts and to make claims and take legal action in their own name and puts it to strict proof of that authority".

Then deny any keeper liability for the suggested reason.

 

As for anything else,

check with local authority to see if the parking co has planning permission

for their signage and if they dont they are committing a criminal offence

and you cant enter into a contract with them even if you wanted to.

[Beesnees]

A bit harsh ericsbro, but thx for the advice all the same. If I was minded to refuse/reject/challenge the advice you guys give, I wouldn't be here wasting your time. I simply wanted to understand - that's all. If I come across as argumentative, apologies. Not my intention.

 

So if I understand correctly now, you are suggesting that I should lie (even if by omission) about the driver being a customer, right? That is admittedly strange wording on the sign, coz this car park is free for two hrs to all comers, both customers and non-customers. OK, does this mean then that locus standi need not be used at all?

 

Is this ok?

 

Sirs,

 

Re POPLA APPEAL CODE XXXXXXXXX etc.

 

The claim made by ecp against me as the registered keeper is appealed on the following grounds:

 

1. As the appellant, I do not believe that ecp has the authority assigned by the landowner to create contracts and to make claims and take legal action in their own name and I put it to strict proof of that authority.

 

2. According to the on-site signage (image attached), the intent on the part of ecp to form a contractual relationship with users of this car park is explicitly restricted to customers. This immediately creates a legal onus on ecp to prove that the driver was a shopper, otherwise the signage cannot be applicable since the driver would be a trespasser. The PoFA applies to contractual matters only, not trespass, and my personal details were therefore illegally obtained from the DVLA.

 

3. As the registered keeper, I deny any keeper liability for the reasons given above. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged infraction.

[armadillo71]

1. Add that a witness statement is not acceptable.

 

3. Add that you as RK are not liable for the charge as the NTK does not comply with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. Add the reasons why.

 

 

Do your appeal today. The POPLA site was used this weekend by this poster;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460904-Premier-Park-Ltd&p=4900742&viewfull=1#post4900742

[Beesnees]

Does your addition at 1. relate to my point 2.?

[armadillo71]

1. Add that a witness statement is not acceptable.

 

3. Add that you as RK are not liable for the charge as the NTK does not comply with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. Add the reasons why.

 

 

Do your appeal today. The POPLA site was used this weekend by this poster;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460904-Premier-Park-Ltd&p=4900742&viewfull=1#post4900742

 

 

 

Does your addition at 1. relate to my point 2.?

 

 

Yeah why not...

 

And my addition at 3. relates to your point 4.....

 

 

[Beesnees]

Does this cover it then:

 

Sirs,

 

Re POPLA APPEAL CODE XXXXXXXXX etc.

 

The claim made by ecp against me as the registered keeper is appealed on the following grounds:

 

1. As the appellant, I do not believe that ecp has the authority assigned by the landowner to create contracts and to make claims and take legal action in their own name and I put it to strict proof of that authority.

 

2. According to the on-site signage (image attached), the intent on the part of ecp to form a contractual relationship with users of this car park is explicitly restricted to customers. This immediately creates a legal onus on ecp to prove that the driver was a shopper, otherwise the signage cannot be applicable since the driver would be a trespasser. A witness statement is not acceptable without supporting photographic or video evidence.

 

The PoFA 2012 applies to contractual matters only, not trespass, and my personal details were therefore illegally obtained from the DVLA.

 

3. Liability is also denied on the grounds that the Notice To Keeper dated XX XX XXXX does not comply with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. Specifically:

a) It fails to explicitly identify the creditor by name.

b) The time and name & address of the site of the alleged infraction is either too vague or insufficient to be actionable, and finally

c) Fails to establish the claimant's right to enter into contracts on behalf of the landholder, who has also not been identified.

 

4. As the registered keeper, I deny any keeper liability for the reasons given above. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged infraction, and ecp have failed to establish locus standi in pursuing me for this debt.

[armadillo71]

Unbelievable.

 

My point 1. relates to your point 1.

 

My point 3. relates to your point 3.

 

I'm done here...

[Beesnees]

Oops .......again. Afraid the sarcasm went over my head.

 

 

I wondered what that graphic meant. Now I get it.

 

Well, it's done now, and if I got it wrong again dad (Gaylord style), it's far too late to do anything about it.

 

Still got the 'orrible feeling that I've not provided enough info.,

eg where the NTK fails compliance with PoFA 2012.

 

What are the chances they'll 'phone me to ask for chapter & verse?

 

 

 

Assurances that this is a trivial win ..........well, we'll see.

 

Starting to have doubts, but still not phased.

[Beesnees]

Received today:

 

Operator Information and Evidence

Submitted XX/XX/XXXX

POPLA assessment and decision

XX/XX/2016

Verification Code

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Decision - Successful

Assessor Name - XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has not provided any evidence for this case.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have any landowner authority to operate on the site in question and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and with evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

 

It may have been a tortuous journey, and I severely tested the patience of some advisers here, but at least it paid off in the end.

 

Thanks fellas. Couldn't have done it without you.

[honeybee13]

Brilliant, well done to you and the guys.

 

I'll amend your thread title.

 

HB